It has not, alas. We can revert the change or mark them as broken on the ticket. Then I'll investigate, but #10527 seems like higher priority Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | Joachim Breitner | Sent: 29 June 2015 14:01 | To: ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [Diffusion] [Build Failed] rGHC0aaea5b8345f: Tiny | refactor plus comments | | Hi, | | Am Freitag, den 26.06.2015, 20:16 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: | > Am Freitag, den 26.06.2015, 16:40 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: | > > The builds seem to be failing with perf failures for | > > > > haddock.Cabal | > > > > haddock.compiler | > > | > > but that doesn't seem to happen for me. It looks as though it | > > started with | > > | > > rGHC*rGHC0b7e538a09bc: Allow recursive unwrapping of data | > > families | > | > I can confirm this, if you look at | > https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/ | > you see that that commit is the only in red¹ | > | > Here is the report for that commit: | > | https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/#revision/0b7e538a09bc958474ec704063eaa08 | > 8 | > 36e9270e | > and you can fetch the numbers from there, or from the full build log | > at | > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nomeata/ghc-speed- | logs/master/0b7e53 | > 8a09bc958474ec704063eaa08836e9270e.log | > | > It looks very reproducible as well: | > | https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/#graph/tests/alloc/haddock.Cabal;hl=0b7e5 | > 3 | > 8a09bc958474ec704063eaa08836e9270e | | has this confusion cleared up? According to | https://perf.haskell.org/ghc/#graph/testsuite/unexpected%20stats;hl=0b | 7 | e538a09bc958474ec704063eaa08836e9270e | these tests are still failing on my machine. | | Greetings, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim “nomeata” Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ | Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F | Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org